San Angelo council ends PAWS contract, directs in-house animal services

The San Angelo City Council voted 7-0 on Sept. 16 to reject a $162,000 proposal from Concho Valley PAWS and direct city staff to implement an in-house animal services program, citing a plan to expand city-run operations and coordinate with local rescue groups.

Angela Bloss, interim assistant director of Neighborhood and Family Services, told the council the city’s contract with PAWS was ending Sept. 30 and staff recommended moving shelter operations in-house. “Our shelter staff would be providing all animal services in house,” Bloss said, and added staff believes it can manage the transition though “there may be some bumps in the road initially.”

Why it matters: Councilors and members of the public said animal-control strategy affects public health and safety, shelter intake and euthanasia rates, and the workload of local rescue organizations. The council’s vote ends a five-year contractual relationship that began in 2020 and shifts operational responsibility, adoption processing and liability more directly onto the city.

City staff described the transition plan and timeline. Amanda Weddle, the newly hired shelter manager, said she had run adoptions and adoption portals in previous jobs and that, "Through conversations with Daniel, with Angela, I believe that we've got an action plan in place to get the layout within the next week or so and have it ready to implement within 2 weeks." Bloss said the city intends to assign a staff member specifically to manage adoptions and to rely on local rescue groups to pull animals for adoption.

Council members pressed staff on capacity, resources and fairness. Several asked whether the city had sufficient Animal Services Officers (ASOs) and training to maintain operations during a remodel and transition; Bloss said the city budget included staff conversions and hires. "We converted we do have a staff member now that's is is a converted ASO. And we also have budgeted to hire an additional ASO this year," Bloss said. Council discussion indicated the council expects to reach a staffing level of six ASOs this year and to budget for additional ASOs next year.

Officials reiterated public health concerns and the need for stronger spay/neuter compliance. City Manager Daniel said the city is keeping intake open to avoid leaving animals loose in the community and described spay/neuter work as essential to long-term population control: "Public health and safety ... we're making absolutely sure that we're keeping our shelter intake open." Amanda and Bloss said they are reviewing task force recommendations and ordinance changes to increase compliance.

Members of the public and rescue groups urged the council to fund spay/neuter voucher programs. Jeton (Jatoma) Giese, a volunteer with local rescues, asked the council to "find money for a voucher program for the public" to help people afford sterilization and prevent overpopulation. Sharon Hoffman of Critter Shack supported the in-house approach and also urged voucher funding.

On liability and policy: council members asked how adoption liability, forms and compliance previously handled by PAWS would be managed going forward. Brandon (city legal/purchasing staff present) and staff said the city will adopt the governing policies and manage liability as the contract currently positions the rescue as an agent; staff noted the city will assume more direct operational responsibility but has legal mechanisms to manage risk.

Outcome and next steps: Councilor (unnamed in transcript) moved to reject the PAWS bid and implement in-house programming; Harry Thomas seconded. The motion passed 7-0. Staff will return with details of staffing allocations, an adoption workflow, enforcement and spay/neuter program proposals, and will work with rescue groups to define a fair, first-come process for pulls and transfers.

Community reaction and resources: Multiple council members offered to volunteer with the shelter; staff said they will continue outreach to local rescues to coordinate pulls and adoptions.

Ending: Council direction is to proceed with the in-house model while building partnerships and enforcement measures; staff said it will bring operational details and potential budget adjustments back to council for follow-up.